S/PV.2699 Security Council

I should like to inform members of the Council that I have received a letter from the representative of Lebanon in which he requests to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the Council’s agenda. In accordance with the the usual practice, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite that representative to participate in the discuesion, without the right to vote, in conformity with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the Council’e provisional rules of procedure. There being no objection, it .is so decided. At the jnvitation of the President, Mr.Fakhoury (Lebanon) took a place at the Council table. The PRBIDRNT: The Security Council will ncm begin its consideraticm of the item on its agenda. Members of the Council have before them the report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Interim mrce in Lebanm (UNIFIL) covering the period 10 April to 10 July 1~66, which is contained in document s/l6164 and Add.1 and Wd.l/Corr.l. Members Df the Council also have before them the fGllouing other documents: S/lA202, letter dated 7 July 1986 frcin the Permnent and S/18226, which contains the text of a draft resolution prepared in the cowsc of the Council’s consultations. (The President) It is my underetanding that the Council is ready to proceed to the vote on the draft resolution before it. Unless I hear any abjection, I shall put the draft resolution to the vote nav. A vote was taken by shw of handu. In favours Austxalia, Bulgaria, China, Congo, Denmark, France, Ghana, Madagascar, Thailand, Trinidad und Tobego, Union of Soviet Socialiet Republics, Uhited Arab miratss, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United State8 of America and Venezuela The PRPSI~D~I There were 15 votes in favour. The draft resolution hae thue been adopted unenirpouely ae resolution 566 (1966). (The Ptes ident) I shall now cell up311 those men&us of the Council who wish to make stetements follwing the voting. Mr. BPOCHfMD (FK~IIc~) (interpretation from French): The Security Council has cast to decide upm the twentieth renewal of the mandate of the united Nations Interim Ebroe in Lebanon (UNIFIL) , and, without ccncealing its concern about the conditions in which that Force is being used, France wishes to reaffirm its ccmnitment tc uNIF2L. Last April my country proposed that the Secutity Council decide in favcuK of a shorter amdate, as it had already done on several earlier occasions. France wnsidered that the Council should prompt the international wmunity to make a fairer apptaisal of UNIFIL’s activities. we stated that we wished “to induce the corntries wncerned to reflect and to consider the situation,. (S/PV. 2681, p . 14- 15) and,. in that spirit, we requested the Secretary-General to report tc the Council. Of course, we must observe that many obstacles - as the report testifies - still lie in the way of action by tha mrce in acrcordance with its mandate as set forth in Security Council resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1976). We cbn therefore only deplore the continuing difficulties encountered in the negotiations being held by the Secretariat. Nevertheless, we consider that the adoption of resolution 583 (19861, by which the Council voted - unanimously, for the first time - to extend the mandate, indicated that our appeal for an urgent wnsi&ratim of the problems facing the Force had been heard. The past three mths have provided time for the reflection that we urged. (Mr. Brochand, France_) The usefulneee of UNIFIL*e activities has been broadly recognieed. Its financing, while etill a matter of ooncern, is naw assured on a broader basis. Our desire to rebalance responsibilities and risks within UNIFIL has met with under standing. Lastly, we note with satisfaction the Sectetary-General*e renewed efforts and we wish ta express to him our encouragement and to urge him to pursue resolutely his difficult negotiations in the field with the various parties involv5d. In the more Qositive context that hae ncnd been created, it is quit5 clear that the extension of the mandate cannot henceforth be a mere matter of routine. We are not facing the question before us in the contsxt of a broader responsibility. My country thue continues to give it the response it has always given because of its davotion to the unity, swereignty, territorial integrity and indepen&nce of CebinrOll. That is why France, which makes a particularly significant contributian to the Interim Force and which is ready , as lcng as UNSFIL is considered necessary, to continue that support, voted in favour of the renewal of its mandate for a sin-mmth period, as requested by the Government of Lebanon and recommended by the United Nations gtcretary-(ieneral. Hr. HAKEY (United Kingdom): Uy delegation wlaxnes the unanimous vote by crhich the Council has decided to extend the mandate of the Unitzd Nations Interim EDCW in Ubmon (UNIPIL) for a further period of six mths, in acxo:&nce with the request aade by the Government of Lebanon. My Government has steadfastly supported the deployment of the Force with the aim , aet out in Security Council resolutlor. 425 (1978). of securing the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanese ter KitDry, the restoration of international peace and security and the return of (Mt. Maxey, United Kingdom) the Lebme6e Government's effective authority in the area. There can be no doubt that UblIBIL ie an iaportant factor for stability in the area and that it embodies the international camunity% camitment to Lebanon. We consider its provieion of humanitarian see&tame to the local population in its area of operation to be of particular value. Uhile my Goverrment favours the continuation of UNIFIL’s role, however, it should be underetood that we do not believe that the renewal of it8 mandate 6hould be lo&ed upon as automtic. We look for real progreee in the aming mandate period towards full imple3nentat.ia-n of UNfFIL’e mandate. we welcoum tbe &metary-General’s carclueion in paragraph 28 of hie report of 17 June that the United Nation6 should pursue a proceea of negotiation with the two Governments cancerned in order to reach agreement with them 01 practical measures for bringing this about. Eli8 effort8 to that end, which he haa prsued thmugh the vieits to the area of Under-Secretary-General Goulding and Hr. Aid, have our full oupport and oo-o~ration. An esmntial cwgonent of any solutiar to the tenee and mhappy eituaticn in muthe6n Lebannar, a8 the hcretary-General*e report indioatea, is the canpletion of the withdrawal of Israeli f’oroee to the international border. In this regard we welcme the Israeli aesurancer’ referred to in paragraph 25 of the report, that it &en not intend to maintain a militiry presence in Lebanon in&finitily. In these matters I regret that tiere tends to be nothing more enduring than the Waporary, We look to the Israeli Governnmnt to take full auxxmt of this Council’s unsniamue wish to secure a rapid end to the present unsatisfactory situation in which Israeli ~;GS &iG Giaecrr wniroiiti by them occupy Lebanese territory and prevent the exerctee of ILehneee ecrrereignty . (Mr. Mexey, UniWd Kingdom) My delegation reoognires that a n&u&at of developmenta are required to bring ebout peaceful and stable conditions on the border betwee Israel and Lebancm. A recent eample of the continuing difficulties was the violent incident on the night of 9-10 July at Rosh mniqra, and there was another yesterday 8t Jeaxine. But ve draw encouragement from the express resolve of the parties concerned that the situation should not be allwed to revert to that which obtained in 1982. In renewing the mandate of uNlpxL for 8 further period of six rwnths the Council has, I believe, responded positively to the Secretary~nersl’s call for a sustsined effort by the ulied Nations to find a vay of implementing Security Council resolution 425 (1978) in full. But it is hardly neoessaty for me to Pint out th8t uncertefhfy 8nd doubt will cmtinue to surromd this effort for 8s long 88 the financing of the mrce remains in it5 present critical state. It ia crucial, therefore, for the effectivenees of the international community’e efforts to resolve the problema of southern Lebiplan, that member States pay proxptly and in full both their current assessed cantributiohs to UWXFIL and the backlog of 8CCe8Cfs which sume hiwe built up. This applies vith partioular for08 to germ8nent wrpbers of of the Comcil. hy delegation is encouraged that certain amntries have reconsidered their earlier refusal to pay their aeseseed contributions and urge8 them to m&e also the payments for which they are in arreaes. (Hr. Maxey, United Kingdom) Our gratitude to the troop-contributing countries is all the greater in So far as they continue to absorb a higher proportion of the cost than should be the case. I should like to express my delegation’s particular appreciation of the courage and discipline displayed by the officers and men of UtJIFIL, who operate in difficult and often dangerous ccnditions. I have no doubt that all q eubert of the Council share our view that harassment of UNIFIL by armed elements, from whatever side or quarter, is totally unacceptable and that it is incumbent on any Meaber State in a position to exert influence to do all it can to put an end to such ectione. All the parties involved are obliged to -operate fully with the Force in the exercise of its mandate from this Council. Our sincere thanks go also to the Force Commander, Major-General Iiagglund, tc his military and civilian staff, and to the officers of the United Nations Truoe Supervision Organiaatian (-0) attached to his command, who have carried cut their responsibilities with great professionalism and dedication on behalf of the international oomxunity. Hr. SAFRONCSU’K (Uhion of Soviet Sxtalist Republics) (interpretation frwi Ruseian) : Today the Security Cortncil hae met once again tc extend the mandate of the United mations Interim Force in Lebana, (UNIPIL). Our consideratim Of this item serve8 a6 a etark reminder of Israel’s ongoing aggression in southern Lebanarr, and thus indicates the ccmtinuing relevance of the tasks that have been entrusted to UNIPIL in pursuance of Council resolutione. Unfortunately, we must once again ccmclude that the Security Council’S demands, very clearly formulated in UNIFIL’s mandate, have remained unfulfilled because of 1scaei;s stukofn refussi to witidraw iu irwpa uncuncii~iwiaiiy ZiGi the entire territory of Lebanon. For that reason, because of the actions of Tel Av iv, WLFIL has 30 far been deprived of any opportlunity to carry out the (Hr. Safronchuk, U8SR) functions entrusted to it - the main one being, as set forth in Security Council resolution 425 (1978), to confirm the withdrawal of the aggressor’s troops to the international boundary. The reasons for the present extremely difficult, indeed dangerous, situation are obvious. Israel cantinues to lord it over Lebanese territory. As a result of the liberation struggle of the patriotic forces in Lebanon, the usurpers have been obliged to abandon part of the territory they seized. Nevertheless, Israel continues to hang on to border areas in Lebanon, where, relying on local mercenaries, it has illegally and in violation of the elementary rules of international law created the so-called security zme. On the hole, as the fecretary-General’s report indicates, there has been no reduction in the saq?s of the acts of aggression carried out by the Israeli army and its henchmen against the Arab population. Ae a result of their aggression, they seiaed the southern part of Iebanar , and Israel is naw attempting by all the means in its mer to maintain it8 presence in that sovereign country and to create there a beaahead for striking nsw blare deep into Lebanese territory and for destabilising the general situation in ~&anon. It is obvious that Israel’s acts are aimed also at heightening international tension and undermining the efforts of the Lebanese to normalize the situation in their country. Evidence of this is the most recent barbaric air raids on populated regions in the Beirut area. We kncu ewctly who stands behind Israel, who makes it impossible to call the 1---‘L^-L --^..^--^e L^ e--m - -...a LLt ;r&;.;,^ Lh^ 1-e1 -me.... CsC,r^ rrc l h.. .La-.4a4nr\c rslyF,,*Lrrrc a.J.jr=Ge.a”L CY LGOIVII 0e.u Y.S yuy*~“‘F-“u”“’ v.. M.... -v-------- adopted by the Seclur ity Council, including thuae relating to the carrying out of UNIFIL’s mandate. (Mr. Safrondruk, USSR) It would not be a bad thing if the -ited States were to give some thought to the statement contained in the Secretary-General’s report in document Wlgl64, dated 17 June 1986, to the effect that the presence of its %trategic ally’, Israel, in southern Lebanon not only leada to a further escalation of violence but, indeed, works to the detriment of Israel itself. The Soviet Uniar roundly oondemns the ongoing aggression by Israel in Lebanon and expresses its solidarity with the Lebanese people, which is resisting the occupation. The key to solving the Isbanese problem is clearly indicated in 8ecurity Councit resolutions 508 (1982) and 509 (1982), which demand that Israel vithdraw all ite military forces forthwith and unconditionally from all fsbanese territory. The swereignty and territorial integrity of the Lebanese state must be respected and an end muet be pit to the arbitrary treatment of that country’s civilian population. In carrying out those tasks, tie mited Nations Interim Force in Lebaninan (UUIFIL) has an important role to play, as ie indicated in its mandate. In our view, UNIFIL’s presence should promte the speedy implementation of the essential *al - namly, to ensure the unoonditiarel withdrawal of Israeli occupying forces from all Labaneae territory. The Soviet Union viws the problem of enewing the ewereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon in the general cartext of efforts to achieve a canpreheneive peaceful settlement of the Middle East conflict. The principles and ma&inery for such a settlement are described in the well-known initiative pit favard by the Soviet Ilrrian. Pitt&t and foremost, what is required is an international conference _.. .*. wit i.iIe “LUu4.e z&i, t;c: i~(;~;~ r;~,iir~,:iiJ ~~ ;t,,:=:, .‘;;~ d^d^ -A.-l,.. knam awmdu,Pd rrysuLQ”A, ---.. --=- by the General Aseerably and an overwhelming majority of States Member6 of the Ocganization. (MC. &3frOn&uk, USSR) In We light of the Qresmt situation , and taking intoaocount the request mada by the Ubanese (lovetmnt aa well as the recomendation by the Searetary-General, the Swiet delegation eu~~~rta a decieim to extend the mandate Of UNIFXL for a further period. We therefore ,-ated in favour’of the draft resolutionbefore thecOuncil. At the same tirse, the soviet clkion beliwes that UleQ~esenoe of UNIFIL intebanon is aprelytemprary andQrcwishnalate~-as has, in fact,been stressed by ptewding egeakereand shouldby nomeanebe oonstfued as a way of freeaing the situation to serve the infiereata of the Israeli aggressor. we trust, alao, that if any new BettelOQIDentS should occur in the eituation the Secretary-Generalwill ptom~tly inform the Security Council, whi&, if necessary, would meat again to take the necessary deoisione~ The PRBIDRJTI I call upon the repreeemtitive of Lebaan. Mr. FAKKIURY (febenm) (interpretation from Arabic)t On behalf of the delegation of Leb&n~n, Sir, it give8 me pleasure to congratulate you On your asauxpticn of the presidency of the Council for the mcntb of July. I am confident that lout rich diplomatic experience will enable you to ccnduct the ~ouncil’s business With your Custolpary Wiedolll, ability, oourteey and tact. It give8 me pleaeure al80 to convey to your predeceseor, the Permanent Representative of Hadagaeecar, our apprecietia, for his exemplary presi&ncy of the Council during the past wnth. The Council’s unaniuou8 decieian tp extend the plandate of the United Naticme Interim Force in Labanan (UNIPIL) for a further eix mutthe deeervee our thank8 and gratitude. We consi&r thie support to be a positive indication of the Council98 wish to shoulder its reeporrsibilities and to implement fully, speedily and aostpletely Security Council resolutiar 425 (1978) and all subsequent resolutims on the eubject. The last time I appeared before the Council I ma& it clear that Iebmm had never considered the establitshmant of CINIPIL and the extension of it8 maudate to be am end in iteelf: it ua8 ccly a mean8 to implement the will Of the internatiaral cauemity, as expressed in resolution 425 (1978). The extension of the mandate of the internatiaral Soroe without there having been any progress on the ground falls short of our cbjective. The report of the Secretary-General (S/18164) of 17 June, and the annex thereto (S/18164/Add.l), dated 10 July, are crystal clear ccncerning the necessity to impiement i;iie raiavolii; raaoiutiirraa. The continued grave and volatile situation in southern L&anon results from Israel’s refusal t.0 implement tie resolutions of the Security Council Which call for its ~q1et-e and unconditimal withdrawal from kbanese territzcy, for the (Hr. Fakhour y, Iebmm) BsploymM of iuternational forces within internationally recognised boundaries, and for the exercise of eapereignB1 and authority by the Lebanese Goverrmmt over all it5 territories, 80 that southern Lebanon nray becam a region of security, peace and stability. Therefore, the differences of opinion and position betveen Lebanm and Iera& referred to in the teport are only natural and corm 861 no aurpriee. Ever since 1978 Lebmar has been calling upn the Council to implerpent ite resolutions, while Israel hae been intransigent in ita rejection of Council resowtions and in blocking their implesmtation. Iabanon’e insistence cn the implementation of those reeolutions proceed5 from the principle of its right to liberate its tetritcry, to protect its boundaries and to maintein its swereignty and territorial integrity. The Secretary-Gaeral’s report and the annex thereto have enumerated in detlril the incidents and practicee that took plaos in UN*YIL’s zme Of Operation in the period 10 April-l.0 July 1986. A few days ago, precieely an the night of 14-15 July, Israel added a new episode to the oerieo of its acts of aggressionr its military jets boded three villagse well insi& Iabweee territory, only a few mile5 away from the capital, Beirut. On 10 July, Israel had 5150 boubed the Bin II1 Flelwa Ceap near Sidon. Israel’s naval blockado of the ports of lidon and qre remains in force. Israel must realise that security, peace and stability in the couth and in the regim are conditional upon renulciatim of the policy of occupatim and aggrceafar; Israel mmt abandon ita intransigent refuaal +A iaplemmt the Council*e rorrillltirrs~ In umclusicm, I should like to place cm rewrd the thanks and a;lpreciatfm of the Government of Lebanon for the continuing efforts of the Secretary-General, and his saswiates. e (Mr. Fakhoury, Iebanan) I should aleo 1 ike to place an record our gratitude to Wjor general Ilagglund, and his amnand, to the officers, enlisted men and civilian employees, of the international force, and to the internaticmal oberoervers. We are similarly indebted to the contributing States for their generosity and for the sacrifices they have made in the cause of peace and security in Lebanon and in the region. Cur elpacial appreciation goes to the previous Coaunader of the in-rim Rxce, Lieutenant-General Callaghan, for his wi8e leadership. The delegation of IBbanm hops that the appeal ma& by the Secretary4kmeral in hie latest report will evoke a speedy aud generow resPome that will reduce IJNIFIL’s large budgetary deficit and contributing States’ accumulated arrears. The PRBaSEHTt I thank the representative of Lebana, far his kind words addressed to the presidency. I should like to inform fneosrdpers of the Council that I have received a letter from the representative of Israel in which he requests to be invited to participate in the diecussicm of the itim cm the Council*e agenda. In amformii with the usual practice, I propase, with the corment of the Council, to invite him to participate in the discuemion, without the right to VOW, in acoordsnoe with the relevant prOVi6iOne of the Charter and rule 37 of the Council*~ provieimal rUleI of prccedure. There being no objectian, it ig so decided. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Netanyahu (Israel) to& the Place reserved for him at the aide of the Council Chamber.

x invite the reprpaentative of Iocael to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. MBTAMYABIJ (18rael); Mr. President, I ehould like to congratulate you on the excellent marines in which you have been conducting the work of the Councilr 88 I should like to congrstulate your predeceeeor for having colrpleted such work. In view of 80me of the rertWk8 that have been made here m&y about my CoMtty'8 policies and practiCee on the matter under di8n,88im, I should like to epell out exactly that ie our policy and what ia our practice, because I think the reality conflicts rather #batply with 8ca8 of the stetements ma& here. We have no intereat ~atsoever in Lebanon*8 territory or, for that matter, in Lebantm’s internal affake, a8 such. We do have an interest in our territory and in our internal affaire, and the chief problem that we have been facing from that border for many year8 now is the threat of terroriet attack8 against our tovn8 and village8 in the northern p8rt of Ierael. That threat manifested iteelf on many O~~a8im8 in the forlP Of arsred i~~cUl:SimS, te~rmietattack8 on villages, rocketinge, shellinga, and the like. Our policy, therefore, is geared to prevent that. (MP. Netanyahu, fet ael) If we talk about how to prevent that, we must also ask do will prevent it. The basic problem that w find on the other side of tbe border is the absence of a body 02 an authority OI a power that ia able to police that area, to die&arge the mat fundaraentil reqonaibility of eovereignty, namely, to control one*8 own territOW and to control armed incureions fran ane’e territory against a neighbour ing State. In this regard, we view UNIFIL as a paioive force beCaUSe it iwroduces a measure of stability into a very unstable area, me that hae a wer vacuum in terms of a aentral authority. But that ie not UiUfBIL’e mendate, nor ootid it be UNIPIL’~ principal activity. It is a by-product of the situation in fsbanm and of UNIFIL’S deployment there. Similarly, UNKFIL cannot, regrettably, police that area against terroriet attacks. It cartributes to that and it help in a meaeurable but not decisive way. Raving visited that border just laet week and 6poken to out cazm8ndece, to the ommanders of UNIPIL and to ame of the soldiers there, I believe there ie no question that UNIPIL has been helping. 6y the BamR token, however, there ie no question in our minds - di, for that patter, in the mind of any fair-minded observer - that it ie not within UNIFIL8e caapacity to carry out the policing action that ideally and normally , and in any other ciLcumtMCesr would be expected of the Wvernmmt of Isbannar. Elut that is not the ady area that the Gavetrnm8nt of Lebanon is not rrble to police. Both the representative of Lebannar and the repreaeimtative of the Soviet Uhicm have epdren of l Lebamse rwereigntym and *the Lebanese Gweznmentm - to which I raise a skpple question: ti can we speak of the south when we cannot even apeak of Lebanese sovereignty and a central authority in the Lebanese capital i-elf, Bei:ut, which today is under direct occupation of the Syrian aray? And to (Mt. Netrrnyahu, Israel) borrow a phrase from tbe Soviet representative, we know who stands behind them. The Lebanese Government is not able to diecharge that fundamental authority in the very saat of it8 own Government, let alme in the distant south. The results are interesting: if one charts the nmber of incidents and killings and casualties in Lebanon, one will eee that they are considerably higher in the vicinity of Beirut than they are in the 13oMb. In fact, over the last year there has been a significant reduction in the nu&er of cross-border attacks in the south. Unfortunately those attack8 have not ceased. If they had, our particular activitiee would not be neceeeary. In other words, we are interested in protecting our northern border, and w8 take actions vie-i-via the terrorist concentrations and attack6 that emanate from the south of Lebanon because the Government of Lebanon has no effective control, and certainly no effective security control, over any part of ita territory, including wer me that ie cartiguous to 01.~8. 10ovr we uould be the first wlaome a change in that situation. We would welcuw the opportmity to diecuee with the Goverrmmt of Lebanon, and with any element in Lebanan, the possibility of making security arrangements in the south that would ensure for UB the safety and pmce needed by our citizens in the north. So far YB have met with a blank wall, as far as such telke are concerned. In the absence of a negotiating partner and of an effective authority in the south, We continue to take action of the kind that !m took the other day. That boatful of terrorist8 uas not aimed at the security acme; it was aimed at Israel proper, and we blc&ed it in or&r to prevent the kinds of incursions that have been attempted in the last year, nOne of which has penetrated the fence, our border, but many have been tried and have failed. That incident was another such attempt. The attempt (Mr. NeUmyahu, Israel) wae not to strike at Israel ox at Israel*8 soldiers; it was to stsike at Israel’s civilian centres, and that is, of course, eomthing that every Governlnent not arly can take action to prevent but must take action to prevent, because its f fret oblhatian ie to potect ite citiseme. I did not hear any reference to that acticm on the part of the representative of Lebanon, nor td the fact that the car bomb6 in Jeazine - one exploded and the Other was caught in time the otbaa day - were deployed not by a Iebanese fi#ting for the so-called liberation of south Lebanon, but by a citiaen of Syria holding a Syrian passpot t. So what we have is a war of terror directed againet Israel. It is directed by outside furcea, those who etand behind those outside forces *ho speak here of aggreseiun and of territorial earereignprty. Those wcxds ring rather hollow not anly because of their indirect policies in I&anon and their direct policies in plaoes like Afghanistan - not mly because of the bscking that Syria and 0th~~ give to thoee groups - but because of the fact that, ;n sumation, there is no Eebmese authority to exert the kind of eweteignprty and the kind of security which certainly the citizens of Lebanon demand for themselves but which we, as neighbeurs of Lebmm , unumdi tionally believe is our right to have on our side of the border. Until the Qvermnt of Lebanm is able to discharge that responsibility, we &all cmtinue to take aotian to Qfend our citizens and we shall cmtinue to hold out our hand to anyone in Lebmm who will assum that reepontaibility. The TaEGIDENTr I thank the representative of Israel for his kind words addressed ta the presidency. 24-25 Me. BYRNE (United States of America) t Contrary to allegations made by one metier of this Council, the United States has steadfastly worked to support the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Lebanon. We believe that the beat means to bring permanent stability to southern Lebanon would be agCNUent on long-term security arrangements relating to the Israel-Lebanon border. In the interim, there appears to be no real altecnative to UWIPIL. TheCefOCer mY Government voted today to extend it8 mandate. UNIFIL ha8 clearly oontcibuted to efforts to bring stability to southern Lebanon despite the limitations placed upon it.

I call on the representative of Lebanon. Hr. FAKIXXJRY (Lebanon) (interpretation from Arabic): Members of the Council must have noted that the cepcesenVative of Israel onoe again has given us views that divert attention from the basic subject before the Council, which is soother n Lebanon. He should be the last per son entitled to speak of oocupa tion. In alleging the non-existenoe of Lebanese authority in the south, he seems to have forgotten that pact of the mandate of the international Force is to help the Lebanese Gwecnment to extend its authority and sovereignty in the south, and that Israel is a party that opposes the implementation of SECIIK~~ Council resolution 425 (1978) and does not allow the deployment of the international Force to internationally tecognited boundaries. It is Israel that does not allw the international Force to help the Lebanese Government to extend its sovereignty. (Mr. Fakhoury, Lebanon) Some of the matters referred to by the representative of Israel fall within the purview of Lebanon’s internal affairs, for which Lebanon alone bears resp0nslblllty. Lebanon coneiders that the lnplementatlon of resolution 425 (1978) and follow-up resolutions would guarantee reqlonal stablllty, security and peace. That 1s the aim of those resolutions. The Israeli representative’s proposal for negotiations with the Lebanese Government or with various organlzatlons or elements Is out of the question. Let Israel Implement resolution 425 (1978); let Israel withdraw from Lebanon; I aseure the Ieraell representative that the Lebanese Government would then be fully able to extend its authorlty and sovereignty and ensure regional security. Let Xsrael give such an arrangement a try. Iarael may say that a security zone 1s the beet alternative, but there 1s another alternative, decided upon by this Council. Let Israel be kind enough to accept.it and to declare its acceptance.

There are no further speakers inscribed on my list. The Security Council hae thus concluded the present stage of ite consideration of the item on Its agenda. The meeting rose at 12.55 p.m.